Section M_REV04162021.pdf

1 (of 6)

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0 Basis for Award

1.1 Tradeoff Process

The Government will use a tradeoff process (NOT a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable [LPTA] process), in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.101- 1, to secure a best value solution for the F-16 fleet. By submission of its offer, the Offeror accedes to all Request for Proposal (RFP) requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors and subfactors. The Government’s decision may result in an award to a higher-rated (i.e. more confidence or lower risk), yet higher-priced Offeror, if (in the Government’s opinion) the anticipated benefits outweigh the price difference. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire source selection process.

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award one contract for the F-16 BCSR program.

1.3 Rejection of Unreasonable Offers

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unreasonable in terms of program commitments, contract terms and conditions, or an unreasonably high/low price when compared to Government estimates, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

1.4 Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the “correction potential” of any deficiency or uncertainty. The judgment of such “correction potential” is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal does not meet the Government’s requirements and is not considered correctable, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competition.

2.0 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

An award will be made to the Offeror who proposes a combination of deliverables and support that is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below. The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be considered for each proposal:

Factor 1 (Proposal Volume I) – Technical Capability Subfactor 1: Program Management Subfactor 2: System Architecture and Performance Subfactor 3: Reliability and Maintainability

2 (of 6)

Factor 2 (Proposal Volume I) – Program Risk Mitigation Plan

Factor 3 (Proposal Volume II) – Past Performance

Factor 4 (Proposal Volume III) – Contract Documentation (Price)

Technical Capability (Factor 1) is more important than Program Risk (Factor 2) and Past Performance (Factor 3); and Program Risk (Factor 2) and Past Performance (Factor 3) are more important than Price (Factor 4). When combined, Technical Capability, Program Risk, and Past Performance are significantly more important than Price. Technical Capability subfactors, which include Program Management, System Performance, and Reliability and Maintainability are of equal importance with respect to each other. Ratings, and evaluations will consider information provided by the Offeror(s); however, final ratings will be determined by the Government during the evaluation process.

2.1 Factor 1 – Technical Capability

The technical capability volume must convey to the Government that the Offeror possesses adequate expertise/understanding of the technical requirements AND provides data that supports/justifies all claims. Accordingly, this factor and each individual subfactor shall be rated IAW the following criteria:

Technical Rating Description Outstanding

(Blue) Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths.

Good (Purple)

Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength.

Acceptable (Green)

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Marginal (Yellow)

Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Unacceptable (Red)

Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.

2.1.1 Subfactor 1 – Program Management

As a minimum, the Offeror must demonstrate an organizational approach, schedule Integrated Master Schedule (IMS), methods, and resources to be used for executing the program. This subfactor will assess the Offeror’s capability for providing turn-key customer support and resolving systemic performance/reliability problems that surface during flight test, fleet retrofit, system performance tracking immediately following retrofit, and throughout the remaining service life of the aircraft. The Offeror must demonstrate capability to meet all technical (design, performance) and logistical (material, schedule) requirements and describe intended actions to mitigate those risks.

2.1.2 Subfactor 2 – System Architecture and Performance

3 (of 6)

As a minimum, the Offeror must demonstrate ability to understand and satisfy all Performance Specification (PS) requirements. The design strategy and system architecture must be described in detail. The design shall not require development of new technologies for the Offeror, but it shall incorporate state-of-the-art materials, processes, procedures, and designs that are currently airworthiness-certified and in service. This subfactor will assess the Offeror’s ability to design the brake control/antiskid system capable of providing the required performance/efficiency over the entire operating range (wet, dry, or icy runway, hot, cold, etc).

2.1.3 Subfactor 3 – Reliability and Maintainability

As a minimum, the Offeror must demonstrate that its design incorporates appropriate reliability and maintainability features which result in extended service life, simplified component repair, reduced maintenance time (including on-aircraft troubleshooting), etc. The Offeror must demonstrate that its proposed design, materials, and protections (hydraulic and electrical) provide maximum resistance to operational/environmental impacts/decay over extended service periods. The Offeror must also demonstrate evidence that its Quality Assurance Program complies with ISO 9001:2015, AS9100, or equivalent, as documented by an independent audit agency.

2.2 Factor 2 – Program Risk

Program Risk evaluation focuses on the weaknesses associated with an Offeror’s proposed approach and includes an assessment of the potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of contract performance, the need for increased United States Air Force (USAF) oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Program Risk will be rated using the following ratings:

Risk Rating Description

Low

Proposal may contain weaknesses which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance.

Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

4 (of 6)

2.2.1 The Offeror’s program risk mitigation plan must demonstrate what the Offeror views as the most critical aspects of the program requirements. This factor will assess risks with the Offeror’s proposed program management approach and how it will correlate to the IMS requirements identified in the Technical Requirements Document (TRD). The risk management plan must demonstrate how the Offeror intends to identify, assess, mitigate, and monitor potential program risks for each technical capability subfactor. Critical program risks which may adversely impact cost, schedule, or contract performance must be identified along with proposed risk mitigation methods for all risks identified as moderate, high, or unacceptable. The Offeror’s proposal must demonstrate past/present performance in critical requirements and processes and ability to understand and resolve program risk issue within its organizational structure, including interaction with its subcontractors.

2.3 Factor 3 – Past Performance

2.3.1 Relevancy Rating

Using Past Performance Information Sheets (PPIS), Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ), and/or information obtained independently (commercial sources, Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR) data, interviews, etc), the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s demonstrated record of performance on present/past efforts. Relevant performance includes efforts involving design, development, qualification, production, and sustainment of aircraft brake control/antiskid systems that are similar or greater in scope, magnitude, and complexity than the effort described in this RFP. The recency and relevancy of the information, source of the information, context of the information, and general trends in the contractor’s performance will be considered. The Government will not be bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevancy and will instead perform an independent determination of relevancy for the information provided or obtained. The Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to those contracts/activities deemed most relevant to the effort described in this RFP. The Government will use the following criteria when assessing the relevancy of past performance:

Relevancy Rating Description Very Relevant

(Blue) Present/past effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort/complexity that this RFP requires.

Relevant (Green)

Present/past effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort/complexity that this RFP requires.

Somewhat Relevant (Yellow)

Present/past effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort/complexity that this RFP requires.

Not Relevant (Red)

Present/past effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort/complexity that this RFP requires.

2.3.2 Confidence Rating

In addition to the relevancy rating, the Government will accomplish an overall confidence assessment of the Offeror’s ability to satisfy the requirements of this RFP. The confidence rating will represent the Government’s judgment of the Offeror’s ability to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on present/past performance. The confidence assessment will consider issues including, but not limited to, the number and severity of problems/delays, the

5 (of 6) appropriateness and/or effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised), and the Offeror’s overall work record. If an Offeror, critical subcontractors, and/or proposed key employees of the Offeror do not have past performance history demonstrating the required expertise, the Offeror will receive a neutral confidence rating. The Government will use the following criteria when assessing confidence:

Confidence Rating Description

Substantial Confidence (Blue)

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence (Green)

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence (White)

No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence (Yellow)

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence (Red)

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Pursuant to Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation (DFARS) 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will consider the extent to which the Offeror’s evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns and/or FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan. That is, to what extent did the Offeror carry out the policy of the United States in the awarding of subcontracts to small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with contract performance. Please note that FAR 52.219- 8 does apply to ALL Offerors (See 19.708 (a) for exceptions).

2.4 Factor 4 – Contract Documentation (Price)

Pricing criteria used for evaluation are completeness, price reasonableness, balance, and Total Evaluated Price. The Offeror’s total evaluated price will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in Section B of the RFP by the proposed unit price for Contract Line Item Number (CLIN)/SubCLIN (SCLIN): 0001AA-0001AT, 0003AA-0003AC, 0004AA-0004AB, 0005AA-0005AH, 0006, & 0007; to confirm the extended amount for each CLIN/SCLIN. These figures will then be added together to determine the Offeror’s total evaluated price. CLIN/SCLIN 0008AA-AD are Not Separately Priced (NSP) data items on a DD Form 1423, Contract Data

6 (of 6)

Requirements List (CDRL); therefore, they will be included in the priced CLIN/SubCLIN(s) IAW DFAR PGI 204.7105(6)(ii). CLIN 0002 will not be included in the total evaluated price, but will be evaluated separately, if applicable. If applicable, the price evaluation adjustment for HUBZone small business concerns will be applied IAW FAR 52.219-4 to arrive at an evaluated price. The Government’s price evaluation will document the reasonableness and affordability of the proposed total evaluated price. In addition the Government will document the reasonableness and affordability of the price of CLIN 0002, if applicable. The specific evaluation criteria are defined below.

2.4.1 Completeness

The Government will review the pricing for completeness. Incomplete pricing (with the exception of CLIN 0002) may be eliminated from the competition.

2.4.2 Price Reasonableness

The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness. Price analysis techniques may be used to further validate price reasonableness of the proposed cost. If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis of Government-obtained information, additional information IAW FAR 15.4 may be required to support the proposed price.

2.4.3 Balanced Pricing

Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices.

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more CLINs is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. Any offer may be rejected if the Government determines that lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk.

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/52_215.htm#P1409_224029 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P322_56244